EPA Shackled by 'No IRIS Act': Risk Assessments Banned from Rulemaking

The 'No Industrial Restrictions in Secret Act of 2025' (No IRIS Act) directly prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using any assessments generated by its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. This ban extends to developing or issuing rules, carrying out regulatory or enforcement actions, and even informing air toxics assessments or mapping tools. Essentially, the EPA can't use its own scientific findings on chemical risks to regulate industry.

Gutting the EPA's Toolbox

The IRIS program is the EPA's primary mechanism for identifying and characterizing the health hazards of chemicals found in the environment. Think of it as the agency's in-house science team, evaluating the risks posed by everything from industrial pollutants to pesticides. By prohibiting the use of IRIS assessments, the bill effectively ties the EPA's hands, preventing it from using its own scientific data to protect public health and the environment. For example, if IRIS finds a particular industrial chemical poses a significant cancer risk, the EPA could not use that finding to restrict its use or emission under this new law (SEC. 2).

Real-World Rollout

Imagine a factory releasing a chemical into the air. Local residents start experiencing health problems. Normally, the EPA would use IRIS data to determine if that chemical is the culprit and, if so, regulate its release. Under the No IRIS Act, that data is off-limits. The EPA would have to rely on other sources of information, which might be less comprehensive or even funded by the industry itself. This could delay or prevent effective regulation, leaving communities exposed to potential harm. The immediate effect is a significant weakening of the EPA's ability to respond to emerging environmental threats.

Challenges and Long-Term Effects

The biggest challenge is the potential for increased exposure to harmful chemicals. Without IRIS data, the EPA's ability to identify and regulate pollutants is severely hampered. This could lead to a rollback of existing environmental protections and make it harder to address new threats. Long-term, this could mean more pollution, more health problems, and a less healthy environment overall. This bill essentially favors industrial interests by reducing regulatory oversight, potentially at the expense of public health and environmental safety.